This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

EDA2123

FULL RECOMMENDATION


ADE/20/90
ADJ-00025769 CA-00032753-001
DETERMINATION NO. EDA2123

SECTION 83 (1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2015


PARTIES :
OPENNET TELECOMS LTD
(REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX)

- AND -

NIAMH JENNINGS


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Geraghty
Employer Member: Ms Connolly
Worker Member: Mr Hall

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00025769 CA-00032753-001

BACKGROUND:

2. The Claimant appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 25th June 2020. A Labour Court Hearing was held on Thursday 1st July 2021.

DETERMINATION :

Background

Ms. Jennings, ‘the Complainant’, worked for Opennet Telecoms, ‘the Respondent’, for just over one month.

The Complainant lodged a claim with the Workplace Relations Commission that she had been discriminated against on grounds of disability contrary to the terms of the Employment Equality Act.

The Adjudication Officer decided that the claim was not well founded.

The Complainant appealed to this Court.

Preliminary Issue

The Court noted at the hearing that the Complainant had not provided details of any disability and that it was not clear if she had advised the Respondent of any disability.

The Complainant advised the Court, in response, that she did not have a disability and that she had not discussed previous health issues with the Respondent.

As the Complainant was representing herself, the Court advised her that there was a requirement on her to first establish a ‘prima facie’ case of discrimination, that the Act protected against discrimination on nine grounds, including disability, and that the first requirement of the Court was to establish the existence of one of the nine grounds.

She was advised further that, in the absence of any evidence that she was covered by any of the nine grounds, a claim under the Act could not succeed.

The Complainant reiterated that she did not have a disability.

The Court afforded the Complainant the opportunity to consider if she wished to withdraw her claim and afforded her time to do so.

As the claim was not withdrawn, it is necessary for the Court to record formally that the Complainant herself insisted that she did not have a disability and, accordingly, a claim of alleged discrimination on grounds of disability cannot succeed as the most basic requirement to establish a case has not been met.

Determination

The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
EMcN ______________________
23 July 2021 Deputy Chairman


NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Elaine McNeela, Court Secretary.